Election results discussion thread (and sadly the inevitable aftermath)

[Silvanus]

All they need is the Supreme Court. Even if they "lose" in the lower courts.

Its rather funny that you seem to see the State courts merely as a road to SCOTUS. That flies in the face of the US judicial system.

I heard they have, like 60 affidavits so far.

I wonder how many of these are of the same caliber of witness as Richard Hopkins, who recanted, then insisted he hadn't recanted, and then provided a recording to prove his point... which contained him recanting. Or convicted criminal Daryl Brooks. Or disgraced ex-attorney Phill Kline.

Testimony on its own is never enough to make a case. But the utter shower of shysters, fraudsters, liars and shills that have been trotted out by the Trump legal team and its defenders online have given it even less credence than usual.

 

[SilentPony]

Its rather funny that you seem to see the State courts merely as a road to SCOTUS. That flies in the face of the US judicial system.

Well and it shows the end goal and tactics involved. The challenges have nothing to do with merit and are solely designed to be dismissed, appealed, dismissed, appealed all the way up to the Supreme court and have the 3 Trump appointed judges who he totally doesn't have blackmail on will overturn several states and give him the White House.

 

[Houseman]

Testimony on its own is never enough to make a case. But the utter shower of shysters, fraudsters, liars and shills that have been trotted out by the Trump legal team and its defenders online have given it even less credence than usual.

That's why, if the complaint goes through, they can issue a subpeona and gather evidence with more authority.

As it is, you're simply cheerleading for tyranny.

I just want every legal vote to be counted. I believe any wrongdoing should come to light. If witnesses saw suspicious things, it deserves to be checked out.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

The rules are the rules. The rules say that the signatures must be verified by all parties. They weren't. A professional may be better suited, but isn't necessary.
You can object to the usefulness of the rule, but that's neither here nor there.

Pennsylvania Supreme Court says ballots can’t be rejected based on signature comparisons

The court ruling backed up a policy issued by the state election office earlier this year.

www.politico.com

10/23/2020

The Pennsylvania state Supreme Court ruled Friday that ballots in the state cannot be rejected because of signature comparisons, backing up guidance issued by the state’s chief elections officer heading into Pennsylvania’s first presidential election with no-excuse mail voting.

The ruling is a defeat for President Donald Trump’s campaign and other Republicans, who had challenged the decision by Pennsylvania election officials, arguing that efforts to match signatures on ballots to signatures on voter rolls were necessary to prevent fraud.

“We conclude that the Election Code does not authorize or require county election boards to reject absentee or mail-in ballots during the canvassing process based on an analysis of a voter’s signature,” the state Supreme Court wrote in an opinion signed by six of the seven justices, including five Democrats and one Republican.

The seventh justice, another Republican, concurred with the ruling.

The court directs “the county boards of elections not to reject absentee or mail-in ballots for counting, computing, and tallying based on signature comparisons conducted by county election officials or employees, or as the result of third party challenges based on such comparisons.”

 

[Silvanus]

I just want every legal vote to be counted. I believe any wrongdoing should come to light. If witnesses saw suspicious things, it deserves to be checked out.

Except those 600,000 or so, eh. So not every legal vote. Just the ones that help.

 

[Mister Mumbler]

Pennsylvania Supreme Court says ballots can’t be rejected based on signature comparisons

The court ruling backed up a policy issued by the state election office earlier this year.

www.politico.com

10/23/2020

The Pennsylvania state Supreme Court ruled Friday that ballots in the state cannot be rejected because of signature comparisons, backing up guidance issued by the state’s chief elections officer heading into Pennsylvania’s first presidential election with no-excuse mail voting.

The ruling is a defeat for President Donald Trump’s campaign and other Republicans, who had challenged the decision by Pennsylvania election officials, arguing that efforts to match signatures on ballots to signatures on voter rolls were necessary to prevent fraud.

“We conclude that the Election Code does not authorize or require county election boards to reject absentee or mail-in ballots during the canvassing process based on an analysis of a voter’s signature,” the state Supreme Court wrote in an opinion signed by six of the seven justices, including five Democrats and one Republican.

The seventh justice, another Republican, concurred with the ruling.

The court directs “the county boards of elections not to reject absentee or mail-in ballots for counting, computing, and tallying based on signature comparisons conducted by county election officials or employees, or as the result of third party challenges based on such comparisons.”

(Sorry for another low effort Sunny reference, but at this point it's pretty much the only natural response to all these stupid "challenges")

 

[Houseman]

10/23/2020

The Pennsylvania state Supreme Court ruled Friday that ballots in the state cannot be rejected because of signature comparisons, backing up guidance issued by the state’s chief elections officer heading into Pennsylvania’s first presidential election with no-excuse mail voting.

The ruling is a defeat for President Donald Trump’s campaign and other Republicans, who had challenged the decision by Pennsylvania election officials, arguing that efforts to match signatures on ballots to signatures on voter rolls were necessary to prevent fraud.

“We conclude that the Election Code does not authorize or require county election boards to reject absentee or mail-in ballots during the canvassing process based on an analysis of a voter’s signature,” the state Supreme Court wrote in an opinion signed by six of the seven justices, including five Democrats and one Republican.

The seventh justice, another Republican, concurred with the ruling.

The court directs “the county boards of elections not to reject absentee or mail-in ballots for counting, computing, and tallying based on signature comparisons conducted by county election officials or employees, or as the result of third party challenges based on such comparisons.”

I wonder if I should cry fowl and say that it's a rigged court participating in tyranny because judges came to a conclusion that I don't like, like @Agema?
Nah. The courts decide. And they'll surely appeal to a higher one.

Except those 600,000 or so, eh. So not every legal vote. Just the ones that help.

How can you be sure that any of them are legal? They weren't properly vetted

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Da

 

[Revnak]

Lol

 

[Silvanus]

How can you be sure that any of them are legal? They weren't properly vetted

That's what all those checking processes are for. The ones both Democratic and Republican state officials have attested were followed.

Once again, it comes down to giving pure aspersion as fact, and presenting nothing to back it up.

 

[Mister Mumbler]

I wonder if I should cry fowl and say that it's a rigged court participating in tyranny because judges came to a conclusion that I don't like

Well, you already are since you keep insisting that this is going to the Supreme Court. Also;

 

[Houseman]

That's what all those checking processes are for

That you have 60 affidavits giving testimony that they weren't followed.

 

[Gordon_4]

That you have 60 affidavits giving testimony that they weren't followed.

Why the fuck do you even have these equally partisan clowns doing this job? Civil servants should be doing this shit, not random party hacks.

 

[Houseman]

Why the fuck do you even have these equally partisan clowns doing this job? Civil servants should be doing this shit, not random party hacks.

Yeah, I agree.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

 

[Vicofthevoid]

Lol they spent 3 million to lose harder....god I love it

 

[Houseman]

I think this is a few days old, though. It's just "they're stopping certification in PA"

 

[Avnger]

I think this is a few days old, though. It's just "they're stopping certification in PA"

The linked opinion states literally none of what that tweet says. I'm going to guess that you didn't even bother to read it though.

 

[Kwak]

No evidence, nothing to see here, drink your Ovaltine and watch CNN.

While the REAL MEN like yourself are out getting shit done an fighting the Matrix I take it?

 

[Houseman]

While the REAL MEN like yourself are out getting shit done an fighting the Matrix I take it?

Nah, I'm just entertaining myself by following the drama.